^ Supposedly Google is designing a netbook based on Android with a touchscreen, accelerometer, etc. I'm not sure whether they're actively designing it or just setting minimum design requirements. It would still be a netbook, but maybe it will open 180 degrees or flip around into a tablet like the Lenovo ones.

We're just getting to the point where tablets are feasible from a hardware standpoint, and I salute Apple for pushing the tech forward (despite the intentional limitations). Over the next few years we should see multiple versions from different vendors, along with increasing power and longer battery life.

My personal ideal computer would be something the size of a Droid/iPhone with similar interactivity, but with the ability to sync with a wireless mouse/keyboard/whatever and full-size external display... and of course enough horsepower to use any operating system comfortably. That might be 10 years away though. =)

That's my #1 gripe with the iPad/iTouch/iPhone and the App Store. You're locked into a distribution channel. It's a false, synthetic market-place, governed by apple design snobs.

I wonder if we'll see Google team up with some of the hardware vendors and build a truly open, android-based touch-screen tablet to respond to the iPad.

>> ^dag:
Do you honestly think the iPad is going to kill Linux distros and an open Internet? I assume that's the kind of thing you are worried about.
I think you should point your worry stick at opponents of Net Neutrality- and vendors who want to "embrace and extend" open standards on the Internet.
It's not like we don't have "closed" applications systems already. Played an Xbox, Playstation or Wii lately?

I don't claim to know the future. I see risks. The trend to me seems to be towards more user-friendly computing, or rather, more transparent computing, where you don't have to actually think about using a complex device that much. That seems to be bringing with it increased manufacturer control over the way the devices can be used. If people get used to that - and they already have - then it seems to me there is a real risk of a more sinister erosion of rights: legislation governing what software can be installed on a device, combined with the ability to actually enforce such restrictions. Mandatory spyware. The China model, if you will. * Maybe none of that will come to pass, but the ease with which people get used to giving third parties control over their devices tells me the risk is there.

So my worry stick is forked many ways. Why pick one party to blame when you can point every which way? If you go far enough down the controlled-device road, eventually you'll be able to simply ban "free" devices for consumer use and few people will care. Many will welcome such a move. Net neutrality opponents are another facet of the slow erosion of the public's giving-a-fuck-about-net-freedom. The consoles you mention are one - and no, I haven't played on one lately - but they are, in my mind, less vile in their current form as they're more restricted devices to begin with - you don't do much else than play games with them. Still, I'm not a fan of those, either.

*(Ask yourself, out in the world, who's the model to follow now? Western countries, divided and economically ailing, or authoritarian China, with a booming economy and a rather stricter attitude towards its citizens? For a lot of the world, China's seems to be the more attractive way.)

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Do you honestly think the iPad is going to kill Linux distros and an open Internet? I assume that's the kind of thing you are worried about.

I think you should point your worry stick at opponents of Net Neutrality- and vendors who want to "embrace and extend" open standards on the Internet.

It's not like we don't have "closed" applications systems already. Played an Xbox, Playstation or Wii lately?

>> ^rebuilder:
>> ^yellowc People miss one key fact, not everything is for you, not every product is going to cater to your needs.


I'm fully aware of that. In fact, that is exactly why the newer offerings from Apple scare the shit out of me - they're poised to be extremely popular, and I'm in a niche that doesn't matter much. Most people won't give a damn that Apple has dictatorial control over what you can run on your device. I do. I worry about a future where information-processing devices are, essentially, owned by the company who made them, not the people who use them. Too much central control is never a good thing. I believe the Apple model is ultimately one of many factors eating away at freedom on the Internet - the ability to control what people can do with their devices is certain to be a statist lawmaker's dream. I also believe most people will never even think twice about that, all that matters is that the gear works well.
In 20 years time, we'll have the Internet we deserve.

>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^Croccydile:
I don't pretend to have any sense of entitlement as well, I know its wrong and I simply don't care.
I'd say you've pretty well disqualified yourself from any discussion of the ethics involved then...or even ethics in general. I know -I- have no particular use for the opinions of a self-professed sociopath...


I'm sorry you feel that way, but I find it difficult to believe otherwise when the opposite party does not care about the consumer in return. I can't be naughty on a professional level on the job but at the same time I can see why places, say, choose to use copied software when even if your 100% legit companies like Adobe/Autodesk still give you crap. I find it appalling that after spending tens of thousands in licenses a year a vendor can come around and say "Despite your loyalty for years were going to change what kind of deal and license you can buy from us. Oh, by the way, weve made all your current installs illegal. Uninstall them before we send the wrath of the BSA upon you." (This has actually happend to me) Yeah, no surprise there is copying.

>> ^Lodurr:
The whole situation is like a stadium changing their game schedule because the hot dog vendors weren't happy.


Great simile.

It's not Leno that wants the old timeslot back; the NBC execs are moving him because his 10pm show was getting complaints from affiliates that there wasn't enough of a lead-in audience for their crappy local news. I think part of the reason is that when there's crappy crime drama before the crappy local news, people watch until the very end to see the conclusion to the crappy plot, and then might continue watching that station when the news comes on. Whereas Leno's show, like most talk shows, gets all the good material out in the first half and the second half is skippable. They tried to take care of that problem before it started by moving Jay's better segments to the end of the show--Headlines, Jaywalking--but that resulted in low ratings overall for the show and so they moved it back to the beginning.

I think the problem here is the local news programs. The whole situation is like a stadium changing their game schedule because the hot dog vendors weren't happy. The local news needs to make a better product and trim the fat on their budget to make it through some lean times. Right now they're addicted to a free ride.

>> ^Doc_M:
Forgive my ignorance but this seems like good advice. Gold seems like the investment of choice to keep your dollars worth something in the years to come. I normally hold Glen Beck in the realm of right wing craziness and don't normally support anything that he says but I don't know much about investing in commodities and he's giving a tip on how to do so with reliability. It's not like using the company he recommends will raise the price of gold to his advantage. Using ANY gold investment will do so. Though he is an asshat when it comes to generally everything, investment in gold seems like good advice and information on who is reliable over others is not in my opinion "bad advice". Gold vendors are notorious for being greedy douches when it comes to investing. Glen is a capitalist in the most extreme way and therefore, I see this as the best bet for that investment.



Except that he stated himself on his own show (via the Jon Stewart clip) that gold jumped $30 during his last show.
Plus, gold is an extremely bad investment over the past few centuries. It's rate of growth is below almost always under the rate of inflation, meaning it'd be better to invest in the underside of your mattress than in gold. The only exception has been the past few years.
I've been tempted before to invest in gold, but after talking to multiple financial advisers, they steered me clear of a classic pitfall that this guy is selling.
There's a reason the commercials for gold seem like infomercials played late at night to sap gullible suckers out of their money - because they are.

Forgive my ignorance (I'm not the best adviser when it comes to economics) but this seems like good advice. Gold seems like the investment of choice to keep your dollars worth something in the years to come. I normally hold Glen Beck in the realm of right wing craziness and don't normally support anything that he says but I don't know much about investing in commodities and he's giving a tip on how to do so with reliability. It's not like using the company he recommends will raise the price of gold to his advantage. Using ANY gold investment will do so. Though he is an asshat when it comes to generally everything, investment in gold seems like good advice and information on who is reliable over others is not in my opinion "bad advice". Gold vendors are notorious for being greedy douches when it comes to investing. Glen is a capitalist in the most extreme way and therefore, I see this as the best bet for that investment.

That may be true, but they're selling exactly what you see. They sell the unrealistic experience.

TV invites you to be a vicarious, passive participant in fiction. The viewer exchanges their time to escape into the experience. In the end, the TV show provides them nothing in return except a temporary cessation of reality. A TV commercial is a 30 second TV show. Like a TV show or movie, you are temporarily supplied with an artificial reality. In this fake reality, everyone is smiling and happy - the setting is perfect - and the food all looks fantastic. Commercials are escapism that do not reflect real life. Everyone knows that.

The only difference here is that in an ad, there is an actual real-world product out there. When a vendor invites you to go visit the local francise and buy a burger there is no implication that you'll be getting the same experience you had in the artificial reality of their ad. I don't expect Ronald McDonald to appear out of nowhere and do tricks. I don't expect hilarious shenanigans to bust my gut when I buy a soft drink. I don't expect a supermodel behind the counter at the car dealership. All they're doing is telling you that you can exchange a few real-life dollars for a real-life product. The artificial reality of the ad accomplishes nothing more except a temporary escape, and then after that you are simply 'aware' that the product exists if you want to buy it. I see nothing wrong with that.

So let me get this straight... not only will condoms keep me safe from STDs and unwanted pregnancies, they'll also protect me from spending eternity with a bunch of delusional, self-righteous Christians? Fuckin'-A, I'm gonna wear a condom 24 hours a day!

>> ^Drax:
Why is there a camera cut every time he finishes a sentence? Is he laughing between takes?


I'm guessing the cameraman couldn't hold it together for more than 2-3 sentences at a time. Whether he was laughing or passing out from a stupid OD remains unknown.

>> ^Lann:
So why not just use a condom or something that works better if that's the end goal?


It's precisely because rhythm method and pulling out are less effective that they promote them. They want their followers to "be fruitful and multiply" even if by accident.

Microsoft once admitted that they would rather people pirate their software than to legally obtain a competing product. Why? Because their monopolies would be protected. If you use MS Office, legal or not, you are still perpetuating vendor lock-in.

Completion of this analogy is left as an exercise for the reader.

When I first came to Thailand, I saw the occasional swastika emblazoned on things that made me double-take -- a kid's t-shirt being the one that I remember the most. When I asked Thai people about it (just politely asking, not like 'ohMyGawd, why is everyone racist WHARRGARBLE') I got the response that the symbol here isn't linked to nazism, it is a Buddhist symbol, etc., as mentioned above.

That was enough explanation for me until I started to see street vendor stands with nazi flags (red background, white circle, black swastika), eagle with swastika logos, and even motorcycle helmets in the SS soldier style with SS logos.

Now my impression is that an average Thai person doesn't associate a swastika with nazism, and might purchase some item displaying the symbol because either:
A) they don't know/care about the symbol's link to WW2/Hitler/Nazis OR any Buddhist symbology and just think it looks cool (which I tend to agree with -- it is a simple yet striking shape if you try to mentally disassociate it from any ethos etc.), or
B) they know it as a Buddhist symbol, and feel that link overrides any to nazism.

But those explanations go out the window for the vendors that sell the flags, symbols, SS posters etc. all in one location, with no "Eastern"/Buddhist swastikas in the mix.

The Tim guy was clearly harassing some vendors, and trying the rouse the crowd against the women. Yes, the woman could have handled it better, but I would say that the guy was committing assault, by acting in such a belligerent and physically threatening manner.

^MaxWilder

1) Who rolled the dice, where did the die come from? How did the die come to have impact? Reiterate the statistical argument to me however you want, you can't get around a supernatural origin an point zero. Just because "science may never be able to prove or disprove" that point, my belief that God fills in the blank is no less valid in my own beliefs.

2) The writers of the New Testament were Jews. If you read carefully the account of Jesus' life, its events are not exactly high on the priority list to jot down for those who did not believe. Those who rejected Christ at the time thought Him irrelevant at best, scandalous at worst. Do you seriously think there should be a police blotter in Jerusalem at the time recording the temporary disruption of money changers and vendors at the temple? Do you not see a motive for non-believing Jews to conveniently omit him? "Yeah, there was this man of God going around and healing folks, but then we killed him. Let's write down the first part, but not the second."

3) The "Thou Shalt Not Kill/Murder" argument against the Bible is an old standby. I posted on a different video the distinction made in Romans 13 that God empowers governments to, among other things, "bring punishment to the wrongdoer." The 10 commandments, and Jesus' subsequent teachings are clearly applicable on a personal/individual level. It would be a sin for me to go to war with the express purpose of working out my own desires of hatred or revenge. According to Jesus, even having the hatred in the first place is the same sin as murder.

4) You accuse me of knowing little about the Bible, when you use convenient shreds of it to build your own arguments. Peter's denial of Christ had a very definite place and purpose. Christ bore the suffering of the cross completely on His own, even suffering separation from God the Father as He bore the sins of the world. If you bother reading any further, Peter is reconciled to Christ and given a mission to establish the Church and watch after Jesus' sheep, the sting of the previous betrayal now fueling conviction he didn't have before. By all accounts, each of the 12 (save John) met a violent end. You have not refuted my argument.

My whole purpose in this thread is to better understand why it is so important for you science-minded atheists to deconstruct religion, Christianity in particular. Why are we such a nuisance to you? Does your keen intellect not allow you to ignore our "ignorance?" Are your feelings hurt when we believe in a heaven and a hell, separated by belief in Christ? Do the actions of a few of our outlying members truly outweigh the collective good of the movement? Are you focusing on what you perceive as hypocrisy?

I find it ironic that I am the one most often accused of intolerance.

>> ^blankfist:
Also, the Canadians around the reservations tend to treat the Native Americans as lesser beings. My gf, who is American and part white and black and East Indian and everything else under the sun (but mostly Native American), experienced the Canadian racism first hand. Most of the local white vendors would be extremely rude to her because they assumed she was from the local tribe.


Which province? If it's Quebec, you have to remember that they treat everybody like that. Furthermore, Quebeccers aren't Canadian, they're French-Canadian. The second part doesn't really apply at street level. I'm in British Columbia, but none of us claim to be British (those who aren't born in Britain, that is).